SPELL OUT YOUR MODEL, PLEASE. Seth Sandronsky is not happy with the current state of affairs:

"President Bush just signed the Iraqi resolution plan for a preemptive and unilateral attack on that country, but that probably won’t improve the souring U.S. job market. Progressives, take note.

Shouldn't that be "idiotarian progressives?" I expect that there are some socialists, and some liberals, and some self-styled "progressives," who will take note of the non-sequitur in that lede.

"Currently, the administration is bringing its full weight to bear on the U.N. Security Council to legitimate U.S. military action against Iraq. Meanwhile, the number of people out of work in September was basically the same as it was in August, according to the Labor Department."

Let's see, if the number of people out of work is basically the same, and the labor force is basically larger, the unemployment rate is falling. Do the arithmetic.

(text slipped at Reading)

"For example, protecting the U.S. public against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein doesn’t change the fact that the economic slowdown is forcing businesses to hold back on hiring. When the growth of profits slows, the hiring of workers slows."

Why should it? That's also a non-sequitur. Let's have a serious debate on whether there is a risk of Saddam's weapons-of-mass-destruction being used on these shores, which WILL have a deleterious effect on the growth of profits, and WILL render moot the hiring of those workers we will refer to as DEAD.

(text slipped at Taunting)

"What is our vision of a civilized society based on social cooperation, not the private competition of all against all and each against all? How should peace activists encourage the U.S. public to consider capitalism and its wars, national security and economic insecurity?"

Tell you what, provide me some specifics of this vision, and I shall be happy to consider them. Until then, I shall continue to see what you call "private competition of all against all" the simplest and most effective way of securing social cooperation. People respond to incentives.

No comments: